Pride and Prejudice (2003) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
71 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Not perfect but an enjoyable film
gee-1511 February 2004
As a devoted reader of the books of Jane Austen AND a card-carrying member of the LDS Church, I became very interested in this "Latter Day" version of "Pride and Prejudice" and finally had a chance to view it the other night. The plot of the movie basically follows the plot of the book with the action transferred to the modern-day campus of a predominantly LDS university.

As with most things, the movie succeeded on some levels and failed on others. I would like to address what I consider to be the failures first and then what worked well. If the filmmakers' goal was to market the movie to an LDS audience, then most of what I have to say in the next few paragraphs is irrelevant. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the LDS culture can appreciate most of the jokes and references. However, if they wanted a "break-out" movie (one that can be appreciated by ALL people) then the movie doesn't work as well. That's not to say the movie is an utter failure but it's missing some important elements that would make it more accessible to "nonMormon" audiences.

The reason we can appreciate "Pride and Prejudice" and the films based on that book is that it envelops us in the culture of that time. We may not understand all its references (things like "entailed away from the family line" or "Are all your sisters ‘out?'") but such things don't annoy us because we have the larger understanding (from our reading of the book) of the context in which the action is occurring. We know it's different and we have some idea as to why it's different.

`Pride and Prejudice: A Latter Day Comedy' doesn't provide the viewer with enough background to allow him or her to appreciate and understand (even if only superficially) the cultural differences. Movie watchers with no understanding of the Mormon culture never get a chance to realize how similar the culture of a modern Mormon university is to the 19th century world of Jane Austen because the filmmakers don't take the time or trouble to point out those similarities. For example, the fact that Elizabeth Bennet is 26 and unmarried in this film is never shown to be unusual. (Contrast this with the movie `My Big Fat Greek Wedding' where the viewer quickly understands that for the protagonist to be unmarried and 30 is very unusual for her culture.) In addition, the average viewer never gets to appreciate the irony of characters like Lydia, Kitty, and Collins because he or she isn't shown how that behavior is at odds with the teachings AND culture of the LDS Church.

One of the reasons Jane Austen's books have remained popular for 200 years is due to her skill in pointing out the hypocrisy, foolishness and frailties of human beings in HER culture. That same kind of scrutiny would have helped this film appeal to a wider audience. Then Lydia's and Kitty's extravagant preparations for "church", their husband hunting antics, the irony of the "Pink Bible" and Lydia's elopement to Las Vegas would all have been better comprehended as behaviors totally at odds with what is considered "proper" and `right' in Mormon culture. Then you would have had an amusing film that all could have learned from and appreciated.

That doesn't mean that what is presented is without value. Overall, the movie is a delightful, amusing romp that aficionados of Jane Austen and the Mormon culture can appreciate. Elizabeth Bennet has always been a delightful literary creation and Kam Heskin creates a full (and flawed) character, charmingly disorganized and impetuous. It is not hard to understand Darcy's fascination with her. Heskin and Seale have good chemistry and interesting interactions and because we root for them to get together, the relationship works. Seale does a good job in portraying the Darcy that Jane Austen readers have come to know and love (or hate). Basically, Orlando Seale's Darcy is a good guy with an unpleasant personality that is nicely contrasted with Jack Wickham, who is a bad guy with an engaging personality (in both the book and the film). One especially nice touch is a scene where Elizabeth talks with Jack over a game of pool. The final frame of Jack as their conversation ends has him framed against an entirely black background foreshadowing some of the less than virtuous actions that he will engage in later.

There's a whole host of other amusing characters: Collins' arrogant righteousness and his constant invoking of his mission president's advice (President DeBourgh!); Charles Bingley's goofy charm; Mary's social ineptitude; Lydia's single-minded pursuit of a husband and that ridiculous Pink Bible (I don't know if such a book exists but if it did, it would probably be a best seller!).

One of the cleverer aspects of the movie was the presentation of quotes from the book as preludes to the action that followed. This and the penultimate shot of Heskin looking at a portrait of Jane Austen is a nice way of tying the movie back to the book.

Overall, I enjoyed seeing characters I knew well translated into a Mormon-type fairy tale. As I said earlier, my only problem with the movie is that it could have been so much more.
36 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worst ever
bousquetbj18 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This was the worst movie made from a Jane Austen novel, ever. The acting was mediocre. The dialog at first was okay, since there wasn't any for the first 5 or so minutes, but overall it was rather poor. The opening line, one of the most famous lines in English literature, is distorted and not even in an interesting way. The movie didn't do justice to the character of Darcy-he's prideful, makes mistakes, and comes to terms with this in the book, but in the movie he's perfect, no edges, no depth, nothing. He explains his bad behavior poorly and Elizabeth falls for it. OK. I'll stop--Pride and Prejudice is my favorite book, made me want to major in English and I love most movie versions of it. This movie was a waste of my time.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Painful modern-day version of Pride and Prejudice
Unwanted_Birdtamer21 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I know that many people consider Clueless a brilliant modern-day version of Emma, but in my opinion, it never rises above being an average teenage comedy. Pride and Prejudice, despite the source material, suffers the same fate--it is virtually indistinguishable from dozens of other teenage comedies (except of course, for the fact that the characters being Mormon). This version is silly and rather dull, nothing witty or clever about it. And can someone explain the reason why in every single teenage comedy, does the rather ditsy female character need to get constantly hit in the head with a ball (in this movie, Kitty is hit in the head with a tennis ball, basketball, football and I believe a few others things)? Perhaps it was funny the first time it was done, but it is extremely tiresome and extremely unfunny.

The acting was mediocre at best, terrible at worst. Kam Haskin is okay as Elizabeth, but doesn't have much of the original character's wittiness or strength. Orlando Seale as Darcy at first is great--he's arrogant, cold and insulting, the perfect Darcy. But the minute Darcy declares his feelings for Elizabeth, he turns into an overeager lovesick puppy (At one point, when Wickham and Lydia have eloped and Darcy finds them, Darcy and Wickham get into a fight. They are on the ground pummeling each other, and when Elizabeth and the others walk in, Darcy stops and smiles lovingly at Elizabeth!!). There are some characters missing from this version. As they have made the girls into college roommates rather than sisters, there are no Bennett parents. Lady Catherine de Bourgh is also gone. Charlotte Lucas only makes one very brief appearance. One change they made which actually sat well with me was concerning Collins and Mary. With all their awkward obsequious nerdiness, the two characters are perfect for each other, and I never liked Charlotte marrying Collins. In this version, it is Mary and Collins who get together, and I prefer it that way.

I really did want to like this version. I lived in Provo for a while, and that was about the only entertaining thing for me--seeing all of the old places I used to visit. However, the script was poor, the acting was poor, and it just isn't worth seeing. In my opinion, if you want a fun modern-day version of this story, check out Bride and Prejudice--it's much better done.
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Jane Austen Is Rolling Over In Her Grave
smapdie11 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
...and perhaps vomiting on herself too. The review on the jacket said the movie would be compared to Clueless and Bridget Jones, but it's wittier. Sure, it's like them. Only with third-rate writers and production values.

(Super vague spoilers ahead! Nothing you won't know if you've read the book and/or seen any romance films previously. Just thought I'd be nice and warn you.)

I think the idea behind this movie was, "If you can't make anything original, rip off a classic! Only make it crappier!" What was wonderful about the novel was the anticipation. Will these two stubborn, dynamic characters ever come to their senses and get together? In this version, the emasculated Darcy falls for Elizabeth almost immediately. Oh, and get this - Elizabeth is a budding novelist. Am I the only one who views struggling actors and writers in movies as a sure sign that the filmmakers lack any semblance of skill? Branch out and do some research, people! There is a world beyond Hollywood. I know a lot of people think that Austen's work is comprised of superficial, silly romances. However, she looks like Socrates compared to whoever decided to greenlight this. This movie would have been better if they had strayed from the novel more (a la the aforementioned Clueless and Jones). Can a film be rigid and watered down at the same time? Well, this one managed it.

The good points are the cutie that plays Darcy and the few vague references to general pop culture. (Did anyone else notice that the bowling scene was reminiscent of The Big Lebowski? A far better film, please don't remind me I could be watching something better!) That's not enough to carry this film, so skip it. If you want to see a good adaptation of Austen's work, and a very good movie in its own right, check out Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility. It's a period piece, but it blows this piece of fluff away.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A child's understanding of Austen
lutheranchick7 September 2005
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen is not just a clever romance. It contains strong criticism against a society that punished women for their intelligence, created an upper class for whom working for a living was disgraceful, and operated through social interactions that could make true, intimate friendship difficult. The novel depicts intense pressure on young women to marry, and marry early-- and shows how such marriages can end in tragedy. This movie, however, is almost completely free of serious criticism of Mormon society. Instead, it is full of silly characters doing silly things, wearing foolish outfits and lobbing objects at each other in case you didn't understand that it was supposed to be a comedy. Apparently the pressure to marry that young Mormons feel is really kind of a hoot.
16 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Poor Rendition of a classic
Meggera18 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I am a HUGE fan of P&P and was disappointed in this film. It was very obviously low-budget with plot problems throughout. The characters were not well-rounded and the story was drastically changed from the book. Elizabeth is supposed to have four sisters, not four friends. That really blew it for me. Also, they made Lydia a horrible person. Lydia is not innately mean, she is naive and immature and selfish, as are most 15-year-olds. I do realize they were trying to update P&P. I don't have a problem with that. It just wasn't very well done. The BBC production of P&P is MUCH, MUCH better. However, if you are in the mood to watch a mediocre romance, pick this up. At least you can sit through it.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Alright, but not wonderful
londonlvr183 August 2005
The modern version of Pride and Prejudice has some good qualities, and some bad. The good? Most of the roles were filled by people who conveyed the characters rightly, the plot was semi-true to the original, and it was believable. The bad? Most of the movie has a huge Mormon faith base, in a lot of the scenes, you want to just rip Elizabeth's head off, and they changed the name of some characters to make it more "friendly." I can't stand that everyone was drinking water throughout the movie, even those whose faith was not Mormon, and this is just a warning, but a lot of the sets are pink. Lastly, I sort of miss the romanticism of the story.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Very watchable, but could have been better
atwoodsmith4 January 2006
If you're attracted to the P&P story line and are entertained by the idea of the plot working itself out in different cultural contexts, then this is the movie for you. The context here is the LDS or "Mormon" culture of Utah. Like "Clueless," the movie's strength comes from recycling the plot of one of Austen's classic novels. As it is, it's fun, though rough around the edges.

P&P poses some real challenges when you transport it to a modern setting, since a lot of the things that mattered to women in the Regency period just don't matter any more. By placing the story in the LDS context, the producers subjected the women to a culture with a few crucial similarities. I know very little about the LDS culture, but the film suggests that LDS women *want* to get married and the men expect them to be virgins. This gives the story its foundation.

This is clearly a low budget production. It shows in some of the technical aspects and in the acting, but the actors are at least competent. There's lots of gentle humor, but the movie lacks the sharp wit that is Austen's trademark.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Socially tone-deaf
joelglevi1 June 2005
Issues of class and social position (particularly for women) are central to Jane Austen's novels, and any adaptation for the screen cannot be successful without being sensitive to this, whether the adaptation is period or modern. This film fails to present these themes in any meaningful way, and I doubt being a Morman would allow a viewer to see any deeper. How does a young English publishing magnate end up hanging around with a bunch of milk-toast, brainless kids from Utah? How did these kids even get into college (is BYU a decent school?), especially if this is graduate school? My advice: see Clueless (based on Austen's Emma); it, too, is a just a teenage romp, but it makes a real effort to hold a modern mirror up to Austen's world. Besides, Alicia Silverstone is as vivacious as Emma Woodhouse.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This is cute...
HugglesTheTrees30 March 2007
I first got to see this movie when it appeared on television, I personally found it a cute little flick. I know most people would feel that this movie is a bad screen adaption...but it is not meant to follow the book directly. If it had been meant to be it would would have been taken in a way more serious direction and it would have been like every other movie that used Jane Austen's book as it's premises.

Yet, like every movie it has it's short comings, I for one, think that it lacked in substance at certain points and didn't always flow right and the acting, at times could come off as sub-par at a few points. But all in all I found it a good movie over-all.

I rated this book a 9/10 due to its creativity and sheer adorableness.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
They have turned a classic novel into a pile of s**t with bright colors!
Officer_Aeryn_Sun8 August 2004
Why, one wonders - do I come down so hard on this film...because 'Pride & Prejudice' is a very good book and there is already a GOOD TV version of it!: The BBC Pride & Prejudice is a mini-series made in 1995 and very recommendable. It's a series with very good actors - Colin Firth, Jennifer Ehle and Julia Sawalha to mention a few -unlike this piece s**t!!

This movie is supposedly based on the novel... However, it's only resemblance is its consistent quoting of the book as well as the overall story with Eliza and Darcy. The problem is: it doesn't work!

One cannot simply take this book, written over 200 years ago and put it into today's history - things have changed... The young sister eloping - with the focus on marriage at the ripe age of what 18?? - and a man finding it beneath him to marry a 'commoner'.. It's ridiculous and seems unrealistic.

Furthermore, the acting is bad but that could also be due to the poorly written script of the film... All those scenes they took from the BBC adoption - yes you could say that 'it was also in the book' - but I will still say that it looked too much like the BBC version which is set in that period of time where such a behaviour was seen as customary. That is why it is so much better - it worked!

The next Pride and Prejudice - release date: 2005 - was a lot better! It's adapted as a movie, telling the story in its period with the right elements from the book - not comparable with this atrocity of a film!
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Full Variety
idolme712 January 2004
Recently the basis for a well-regarded BBC miniseries, Jane Austen's 1813 comedy-of-manners is transposed to a contempo American college town in director Andrew Black's splendidly, surprisingly charming "Pride & Prejudice." Taking inspiration from Amy Heckerling's "Clueless" (loosely based on Austen's "Emma"), pic transforms its source material into a bubbly, pastel-colored frolic, while adhering closely to Austen's essential themes. Bolstered by a strong cast of relative newcomers, pic is much smarter than the fare usually pitched at its targeted teen ticket-buyers. However, the lack of name thesps (save for Carmen Rasmusen in a cameo) means careful grassroots marketing will be required for pic, which opens in limited release on Dec. 5. Modern-dress makeovers of "P & P" are all the rage nowadays, with writer Helen Fielding citing the book as the inspiration for her "Bridget Jones's Diary" and "Bend It Like Beckham" director Gurinder Chadha currently at work on the Bollywood-style "Bride and Prejudice," due next year.

This considerably lower-profile entry, cleverly scripted by Anne Black, Jason Faller and Katherine Swigert, actually represents the latest in a wave of independently-financed films made in and around the Utah area by predominately Mormon (or Latter-day Saints) filmmakers. (It's even subtitled "a latter-day comedy" in the advertising.) However, whereas such niche LDS successes as "The Other Side of Heaven" and the films of Richard Dutcher have distinctly religious themes, "Pride & Prejudice" is a movie in which the characters just happen to be Mormon.

Most non-LDS audiences may not even detect the movie's LDS content, and yet the substitution of a present-day Mormon setting for Austen's Regency England is an inspired one, given the correlation between the two cultures' emphasis on traditional values and, most importantly, marriage.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife," Austen famously wrote at the beginning of her novel, before detailing the efforts of her plucky heroine, Elizabeth Bennet, to find the right such man. Likewise, the movie's Elizabeth (Kam Heskin), a student and bookstore clerk with dreams of becoming a famous novelist, oft has marriage on her mind, though she is loathe to admit it.

The four other Bennet sisters from the book, have here been turned into Elizabeth's housemates: sultry Argentinian Jane (Lucila Sola); perpetually squabbling Lydia (Kelly Stables) and Kitty (Nicole Hamilton); and the fatally shy, awkward Mary (Rainy Kerwin). At a party thrown by the charmingly naive Charles (Ben Gourley), Elizabeth is rather disastrously introduced to Will Darcy (Orlando Seale), an expat Brit stopping through Utah on undisclosed business. It's Will's smug "pride" that, in turn, "prejudices" Elizabeth against him, although viewers may realize from the start these two are meant to be. But first Elizabeth settles for the company of with her erstwhile admirer (and inveterate gambler) Jack Wickham (Henry Maguire), as Will is pursued by Charles' strapping sister, Caroline (Kara Holden).

That's a lot of relationships for any movie (especially one running under two hours) to keep track of, but "Pride & Prejudice" does so nimbly. The screenwriters understand the story's appeal lies in its chaotic structure, in the way that its many suitors and their potential mates are constantly pairing off and trading places as if part of an elaborate square dance.

Black, the Scottish-born director whose short film, "The Snell Show," won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2003 Slamdance Film Festival, has a fine sense of pacing and timing; he keeps the movie spinning, so that no one part overstays its welcome.

The winning cast breathes new life into Austen's characters. Spunky Heskin is responsive to the comic stimuli around her like Reese Witherspoon was in the first "Legally Blonde" pic (or, natch, Alicia Silverstone in "Clueless"). And like those actresses, she's well-supported by an array of charismatic scene-stealers, including the irrepressibly emotive Sola, the hilariously repressed Kerwin and the acrobatically goofy Gourley, whose inspired physical-comedy antics dominate the movie's Vegas-set climax.

Tech achievements are well-realized on a modest budget, with Travis Cline's sunny lighting adding luster to the giddy pinks, purples and greens of Anne Black's production design. by Scott Foundas
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
green14911 February 2005
A mockery of the novel - the characters in no way resemble the creations of Jane Austen except for name. The stories have been twisted in a pathetic way, nominally they live in UTAH and are MORMONS. For a Regency Era novel, that's just tragic. Furthermore, there is no chemistry between any of the couples and you spent an hour and thirty minutes begging for the film to end. (The first ten are spent asking what this movie has to do with Pride and Prejudice.)

As a stand-alone movie, it lacks interest to draw the audience in, employs cheap Hollywood clichés (such as keeping Wickham lit in shadows during many scenes) and lacks substance of any sort. The characters aren't even consistent to their movie versions and scenes are spliced together in a mish-mash way to move the non-existent plot along.

Final conclusion? Avoid this film at all costs, even if you are a die-hard Austen fan.
14 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not recommended
flmlvrnic4 November 2005
Jane Austen must roll in her grave every time this film version of her book is watched. This modern day adaptation fails miserably. The characters are not well defined. Even though Elizabeth is charming, there is no chemistry between her and Mr. Darcy. In addition, I cannot believe that the youngest girl in the group is the age the director is trying to portray her as. She seems much older trying to play a younger part. And every time she is on screen I am reminded how fake this film feels. The acting is generally too silly and unbelievable by the whole cast. They are obviously trying to appeal to a pre-teen demographic and in doing so eliminate every other demographic on the map from enjoying the film. Save your time and watch another version of this awesome book.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
the perils of adapting a precious novel
redmaeven3 September 2004
I love romantic comedies. Throw a girl in the path of a boy, have them miscommunicate, and then fall in love, I couldn't ask for anything more in a movie. Unless of course the movie is supposed to be Pride & Prejudice. Which this film is not. The characters take names from the novel, there are cute mentions of place names, and that's about it.

Pride & Prejudice is a beloved book because it has a smart and sassy heroine who through various trials comes to realize she is flawed. She is lucky because the most eligible man around (who happens to be in love with her) is also flawed, and also comes to realize this. In many ways, and despite his great wealth, they are equals, and they evolve in a similar path. Also, through the narrator, society and marriage are stingingly satirized.

In this film, Darcy is a little prissy, but that's about it (there is no real class issue with him). It's Elizabeth who is haughty and at times cruel. She must deal with public humiliation at the hands of Collins, eat her words after her outburst to Darcy, and realize she is a really bad writer. No one else in the story changes. In this modern setting, none of the girls have any career aspirations (except for Elizabeth whose dream as a nine year old, we are told, was to be a writer), pms is blamed for an eating binge / self-pity wallow, and the end-of-the-story, where-are-they-now montage includes plenty of mentions of children.

In the features section the director says this movie is meant to be a fable.

It seems to me, the filmmakers' (misogynistic) moral is: woman, you may think you are happy being independent, but you are really being proud and silly, and you won't be happy until you have found a home and a husband. WWJD, what would Jane think?
12 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pleasantly surprised Austen fan
destinty246018 December 2003
Let me say that first that I had serious reservations about this film right from the start - I'm a huge Jane Austen fan and have about worn out the tapes of the Pride and Prejudice miniseries, I can't imagine anything topping that treatment.

I was very pleasantly surprised. This movie takes another route than the miniseries. While staying true to the themes of the novel, the movie adds a modern twist to the characters and ideas. And, I might add, it's hilarious - smartly so - and a real treat to watch. My boyfriend, whom I had to drag along, ended up liking the film as much as I did.

First of all, this film has a great look. The art direction really stands out and gives the characters a fresh, hip backdrop to play against. And what a smart idea to put this in a Mormon setting - I have friends who are Mormons and it seems like the whole marriage thing is a pretty big deal in that culture, and the dating scene seems to be a lot more traditional and consistent with "old fashioned courtship." So it felt like a great setting for this version.

The chemistry between the two leads is very believable - subtle while at the same time quite powerful, even from their first meeting at the party.

I would have liked to see more of the Charles Bingley character - Ben Gourley is fun to watch and stole pretty much every scene he was in.

The breakout performance is undoubtedly Kelly Stables who plays Lydia - this girl has a bright future ahead of her. She's a great example of the depth of the development of these characters - Stables plays Lydia big, loud and spunky on the outside, but her portrayal of Lydia in the last part of the film is soft and very vulnerable, adding a whole dimension to the character that makes her much more believable and real.

The writing in this film is quick and witty - not a lot of hit-you-over-the-head type gags that I was dreading. The movie earns its laughs instead of going for the cheap jokes. And there's a whole layer of stuff in there for us Janeites - check out the name on the mailbox or the menu at the restaurant for starters. . . fun references abound.

I'll probably head back to see this movie again this weekend, as I'm sure there's a lot I missed, while I was bracing myself for the terrible movie I was sure this was going to be.

All in all, I am hugely relieved and actually excited to see what these actors do next.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
poor Jane Austen
lulugou11 January 2005
If you had to make such an awful, awful movie, could you at least change the title. Just because JA is dead, doesn't mean you can do whatever with her best, beloved masterpiece.

The only saving grace is good looking Darcy. Just looks, his acting is way off too. Nothing upper class, nothing haughty. Lizzy is no better, more annoying. And all the other supporting actors, well, are they real actors? I can't comment on their acting, because there is no acting at all.

I had to watch Colin Firth version of P&P twice again just to get rid of the awful taste from this.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Waste of a Good Mr. Darcy
gravedigger-122 September 2004
This movie would have been better off in its own orbit somewhere in a faraway galaxy and not associating itself, even remotely, with Austen's Pride and the Prejudice. Instead, it comes across more-like Connie Francis' Where the Boys Are (1965, Ft. Lauderdale, Spring Break). It ignores the plight of a woman who bases her own social situation on the social standing of her prospective mate. Characters, in this movie, serve very little purpose. Lydia, Kitty, Mary, and Mr. Bingley are colorless and idle and are about nothing (great teeth, however). There is no Mrs. Bennett to light the fire of 'hurry-up and marry'. No Mr. Bennett to promote non-conformity and boredom. Mr. Collins, who is traditionally portrayed as the gallant knight of the Kings James Version, is the awkward oaf but never the marital threat that made his character funny. This Wickam doesn't even come close to being an illusion of a 'fine catch'. Jane and Lizzie aren't even sisters, figuratively, in this weak rendition. But, even this movie couldn't reduce Mr. Darcy. And what woman can resist a man who says 'I'm wrong. I'm sorry. Forgive me. I love you'? (sigh) Ha! The Austen tribute in the movie comes too late. It was like receiving that expensive after-dinner-mint when you've only supped on a bologna sandwich.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Propaganda? Beware!
MovieSnark4 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
About 10 minutes into this DVD, I paused it and checked the box to see if the film was made by the Mormon church. There seem to be an increasing number of movies that look okay in the video store, but I don't want to be preached to, so I am in the habit of looking for any official ties to the LDS church or any other church/cult. Well, there were no identifying marks, but something about the film was making me feel creepy: I don't know any 26 year old WOMEN (not girls as they are referred to in this movie) who think they're over the hill; I haven't heard the phrase "living in sin" in decades; etc. Soon enough they revealed that it was set in Utah, so I knew something was afoot. I watched the thing all the way through, just out of curiosity, and I thought it was just terrible. While not overtly promoting the LDS church, it felt like propaganda for a throw-back lifestyle. For the most part, the acting was awful, and the plot may have been somewhat true to Jane Austen, but I'm afraid she's turning in her grave. Even in her 200 year old story, Lydia wound up living with Wickham for some time before he was forced to marry her against his will. God forbid we allow an undeserving man to deflower a virgin! Save your time -- this is two (felt like three) hours of your life that you'll never get back. Give me Bridget Jones any day!
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A must MISS!
Scott Migaldi10 February 2004
Puh-lease! comes to mind after watching this version of the movie. The story would be passable if it did not try to capitalize on Austin's work, which is one of the best novels ever written. Instead the uncreative writing team stole concepts and characters to fulfill their lack of creative talents. I think that if you are attracted to this moving because you are fan of Austin you will be very disappointed. However, if you have no idea who Miss Austin is or what she has done you find this movie barely entertaining.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Huge Disappointment!!!
SmittySpots21 September 2004
This movie is a very low budget production. It is very choppy movie with many inserts. Even worse is the very sad stereotype of single Mormon women and their "Pink Bibles." The poorly written script has very little to offer. The movie has a strong Mormon focus to it. The average movie patron probably won't appreciate the Mormon themes or half hearted humor in it. The story plot is very shallow and reminds you more of junior high plots than adults. The only redeeming qualities to it are NO CUSSING, and no bedroom scenes. But it hardly qualifies as a movie I would want to see again. This movie was a huge disappointment and a real dud in my opinion, nothing like the original Pride and Prejudice.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
All in all, a waste of time
ldsgirl2611 December 2003
I am a big Jane Austen fan and I am a big fan of the A&E miniseries and so my boyfriend took me to see this. It was a big waste of our time. I thought that Elizabeth was RUDE and why anyone liked her I will never know. Why do filmmakers have to ruin a potentially good movie by making the characters LDS? We walked out on this movie halfway through and rented Bridget Jones's Diary which is a better modern day adaptation than this piece of trash.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I like it
kroesermaja5 February 2005
Yes, it's a Low-Budget-Production. And this is one of the points why I like it. The are too much perfect High-Budget-Productions, I'm often find them boring. Its a great thing to see something imperfect, sometimes.

I saw this movie twice. I couldn't see any mention of the Mormons in the movie. It plays in Utah, okay. And there is a very funny scene in a church, but we don't hear that it is a Mormon temple. And the Pink Bible has no influence to Lizzy after all, on the contrary, the movie shows how absurd those books are. So I'm a foreigner and don't know much about the Mormons, but there was nothing in the movie that make it clear as a Mormon-movie.

And it's no adaption. Its a lovely declaration of love to Jane Austens "Pride and Prejudice", like "Clueless" and "Bridget Jones' Diay". Not more and not less. And in that way I like it very much.
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Kind of clever, fun for the family
ArizWldcat6 August 2004
As a resident of Utah who DOESN'T belong to the LDS church, I honestly hadn't wanted to see this, but my kids saw it and said that it was actually pretty good. I am a BIG fan of Jane Austen (with an E!) and I thought the references were rather cute. My husband, who is really clueless when it comes to Austen, was a little lost. We had to keep stopping the DVD and reminding him who all the characters were as it was a bit hard to keep track if you're not familiar with the story. That is probably this movie's biggest flaw; however, it's rather cleverly done for those of us who are Austen fans, even attempting (a bit clumsily) to illustrate the injustice women face (Austen's 19th century theme) when they MUST marry well in order to survive. The performances were uneven; some were rather wooden, but most were adequate. The lead characters (Darcy and Elizabeth) did fairly well. Bingley and Jane were distractingly goofy. I loved the grocery store scene! I didn't quite understand, what with Mormon families typically being as big as they are, why the 5 girls couldn't all be sisters, but that's a minor flaw, I suppose. Overall, this was cute and had some clever writing. I had very low expectations and this exceeded them. A definite possibility if you're looking for a rental the whole family (particularly if you have all girls as I do) to enjoy.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
too saccharine
seneca7018 March 2006
i am crazy about modern day takes on classic stories--clueless is one of my favorite movies because it so perfectly retells Emma. so, of course, when i saw this movie was coming on TV...i was eager to give it a try (though skeptical, considering i'd never heard of it) be honest, i wish i had that hour and a half back.

it's a ridiculously saccharine, terribly written, horribly acted movie--certainly, filled with clever tricks (like the Austen quotes that bookend all the scenes), but, at its core, a boring, unsexy, uninteresting version of a remarkably sensual novel. Darcy is more dopey than brooding, and Lizzie is cute--but too flat to play such a rich, nuanced character.

i didn't know it was a "Mormon" movie until i just looked it up--but i'm not surprised. that explains the constant references to church and the reason why everyone was interested in marriage--rather than dating.

if you're Mormon and a Jane Austen lover--i imagine you'd enjoy this...but if you're not a Mormon--rent Bridget Jones--it's a better bang for your buck.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews